This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies of Toronto Star content for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, or inquire about permissions/licensing, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com

In June, to finally resolve a long-standing debate, Toronto city council will vote on the future of the Gardiner Expressway East — that section that runs from the Don Valley Parkway to Jarvis Street. While a variety of options and costs are floating about, the critical question remains: is the Gardiner Expressway really a barrier to the waterfront, or do we just not like the look of it?

Council will be presented with three alternatives. One, to maintain the Gardiner as it is today, with basic improvements. Second, to remove it and create a new 8- to 10-lane boulevard at ground level that combines the traffic volumes from both the Gardiner and Lake Shore Blvd. And third, a hybrid alternative that replaces the existing elevated deck of the Gardiner, and rebuilds the six-lane Lake Shore Blvd.

The overriding concern has always been that the Gardiner creates a significant barrier to pedestrians, cyclists and drivers moving between the downtown and the waterfront. It is argued that, in its current form, the Gardiner will impede the realization of the waterfront’s full development potential — both as a major public space and as a new, mixed-use neighbourhood. It is characterized as an eyesore, a piece of expensive infrastructure in need of constant repair.

Actually, the most significant barrier between the East Downtown and the Lake is the “railway viaduct” — a massive 2-kilometre-long concrete box that sits half below ground, extending east from Union Station to the Don Valley, in order to carry trains over Bay, Yonge, Jarvis, Sherbourne, Parliament and Cherry streets. The necessity of this viaduct forced these six north-south streets into dark and noisy underpasses linking Front Street with the Waterfront — and that cement box is here to stay.

The Gardiner was completed in the late 1950s, and carried six lanes of traffic over the central waterfront, south of the railway viaduct, in tandem with a new six-lane Lake Shore Blvd. located either below or alongside it. This meant that, after emerging from the underpasses of the Viaduct, pedestrians, cyclists and drivers now also crossed six lanes of traffic — three going west and then three going east, to reach the waterfront.

Article Continued Below

Less dark and noisy than the underpasses, the crossings of Lake Shore are relatively effortless in spite of the fact that, like the underpasses, they have received absolutely no improvement since they were first completed. Since little can be done to improve the underpasses, opportunities for improving access to the city’s waterfront rest largely with the Gardiner and Lake Shore. So what do the three options say about these?

Maintain — This option leaves the Gardiner much as it is. Importantly though, it will improve conditions significantly at the crossings by introducing better pedestrian lighting and colour, adding planting along Lake Shore, and improving pedestrian and cycling surfaces.

Remove — This alternative will demolish the elevated Gardiner, and combine its traffic with that of a renewed Lake Shore, on the ground, creating 8-10 contiguous lanes of traffic, 4-5 in each direction, with a small median in between. This new expressway will be 55 metres wide — that is, considerably wider than University Ave. (the downtown’s widest street and already difficult to cross at one go), without parking or bicycle lanes, but likely with three to four times the traffic, running continuously from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.

Hybrid — This option will maintain and improve the existing Gardiner in situ by replacing its existing overhead deck and rebuilding Lake Shore in roughly its current location — as a six-lane, landscaped boulevard.

Council’s choices are clear: first it must improve the dark and noisy underpasses; and second, if it really wants to reduce the barrier effect of the Gardiner, it must approve the so-called hybrid alternative, which will not only improve conditions along Lake Shore but also maintain two modest crossings of three lanes of traffic in each direction. The hybrid alternative will also improve access to the important new Great Gulf (Unilever) Development as well as other emerging developments in the Port Lands.

Above all, council should reject proposals to remove the section of the Gardiner in question since it is clear that the “boulevard” designed to replace the Gardiner/Lake Shore will actually end up creating a much wider barrier between the city’s downtown and its waterfront.

John Van Nostrand is an urban planner and architect with a history of involvement with Toronto’s Central Waterfront Plan.

More from the Toronto Star & Partners

LOADING

Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or distribution of this content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited and/or its licensors. To order copies of Toronto Star articles, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com